DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the filing on 11/29/2022. Since the initial filing, no claims have been added, amended or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-24 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman (US 2025/0083314) in view of Lee (KR 20160063167).
In regards to claim 1, Litmam discloses a method for releasing contracted tissue in a subject, the method comprising: identifying an area of skin of the subject under which contracted tissue is present (paragraph 41); applying, by a tip of a device, pressure to a first point of the area of skin, wherein the first point is located over a fiber of the contracted tissue; wherein the applied pressure causes release of a portion of the contracted tissue under the area of skin (paragraph 41 and 26, Fig 1).
Litman does not disclose wherein the tip of the massage device has a cylindrical shape having a diameter of less than 1 millimeter.
However, Lee teaches wherein the tip of the massage device has a diameter of less than 1 millimeter (diameter between 0.5 and 5 mm, paragraph 17).
While Lee does not explicitly teach the tip having a cylindrical shape and a length of less than 6 millimeters, Fig 3 shows the relation between the diameter and the length of the tip as roughly 1:4, resulting in a length of between 2 and 20 millimeters based on the disclosed diameter (paragraph 17). Further, while Lee shows a generally conical shape, as no criticality has been assigned to the cylindrical shape of the claims, this may be considered as a simple change of shape absent persuasive evidence that the specific shape is significant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein the tip of the massage device has a cylindrical shape having a diameter of less than 1 millimeter and a length of less than 6 millimeters as taught by Lee as where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I) and prior art figures may be dependent upon for what they might reasonably teach a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2125), such size and shape may allow the device to precisely apply pressure to the target area in order to provide the best treatment for the user.
In regards to claim 2, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further discloses further comprising applying, by the tip of the device, pressure to a second point of the area of skin, wherein the second point is located along the fiber of the contracted tissue (sequence of massage goals, paragraph 27-28, Fig 1).
In regards to claim 3, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further discloses wherein the contracted tissue includes tissue selected from the group consisting of connective tissue, muscle tissue, and combinations thereof (paragraph 82).
In regards to claim 4, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further discloses wherein the contracted tissue is fibrous connective tissue (paragraph 82).
In regards to claim 5, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further teaches wherein the pressure to the first point of the area of skin is applied for a duration selected from the group consisting of more than five seconds, more than ten seconds, and at least one minute (paragraph 36).
In regards to claim 6, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 2 and Litman further discloses wherein the pressure to the second point of the area of skin is applied for a duration selected from the group consisting of more than five seconds, more than ten seconds, and at least one minute (paragraph 36).
In regards to claim 8, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the tip of the device has a longitudinal axis (Lee: Fig 3) and wherein an angle between the longitudinal axis and the area of skin at the first point while applying pressure to the first point is selected from the group consisting of substantially 30 degrees, substantially 45 degrees, substantially 60 degrees, and substantially 90 degrees (Litman: Fig 2).
In regards to claim 9, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 2 and the combination further teaches wherein the tip of the device has a longitudinal axis (Lee: Fig 3) and wherein an angle between the longitudinal axis and the area of skin at the second point while applying pressure to the second point is selected from the group consisting of substantially 30 degrees, substantially 45 degrees, substantially 60 degrees, and substantially 90 degrees (Litman: Fig 2).
In regards to claim 11, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 2 and Litman further discloses further comprising applying, by the tip of the device, pressure while moving from the first point to the second point (path between goals has minimal downward force, paragraph 30 and 31).
In regards to claim 13, Litamn in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further discloses wherein the area of skin is located over contracted tissue attached to a bone (paragraph 82).
In regards to claim 14, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further discloses wherein the area of skin is located over contracted tissue attached to a joint (elliptical regions are over joints, Fig 1).
In regards to claim 18, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further discloses wherein the contracted tissue is part of a tendon (paragraph 82).
In regards to claim 20, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Lee further teaches wherein the diameter of the tip is at least 0.3 millimeter (paragraph 17).
In regards to claim 21, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Lee further teaches wherein the length of the tip is at least 3 millimeters (Fig 3, as taught by Claim 1).
In regards to claim 22, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Litman does not disclose wherein the device has a body coupled to the tip and wherein the body is tapered toward the tip.
However, Lee teaches wherein the device has a body coupled to the tip and wherein the body is tapered toward the tip (acupressure part 30, Fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein the device has a body coupled to the tip and wherein the body is tapered toward the tip as taught by Lee as this is a known shape for such device and would provide a smooth interface with the tip so as to not interfere with the narrow application tip in use.
In regards to claim 23, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and Litman further discloses wherein identifying the area of skin includes identifying hardness under the area of skin (paragraph 41).
Claim(s) 7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman (US 2025/0083314) in view of Lee (KR 20160063167) as applied above and in further view of Wersland (US 2022/0211575).
In regards to claim 7, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Litman does not disclose the applying step further comprising applying, by the tip of the device having a fabric layer disposed thereon, pressure to the first point of the area of skin.
However, Wersland teaches the applying step further comprising applying, by the tip of the device having a fabric layer disposed thereon, pressure to the first point of the area of skin (paragraph 38 and 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein the applying step further comprising applying, by the tip of the device having a fabric layer disposed thereon, pressure to the first point of the area of skin as taught by Wersland as this would provide a softer contact surface for more sensitive or delicate skin.
In regards to claim 16, Litman in view of Lee and Wersland teaches the method of claim 7 and Wersland further teaches wherein the fabric layer includes a fabric selected from the group consisting of a microfiber fabric and a paper towel (paragraph 38 and 100).
In regards to claim 17, Litman in view of Lee and Wersland teaches the method of claim 7.
While the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the fabric layer is folded, Wersland shows microfiber member 88 having body portion 96 and delivery portion 98 wherein body portion 96 is folded around the edge of attachment 19 (paragraph 100 and 101, Fig 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein the fabric layer is folded a taught by Wersland as this would allow a complete and secure coverage of the tip of the device.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman (US 2025/0083314) in view of Lee (KR 20160063167) as applied above and in further view of Mackin (US 2017/0266077).
In regards to claim 10, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 2.
Litman does not disclose wherein a distance between the first point and the second point along the fiber of the contracted tissue is a distance selected from the group consisting of less than 5 millimeters and less than 1 centimeter.
However, while Mackin does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the first point and the second point along the fiber of the contracted tissue is a distance selected from the group consisting of less than 5 millimeters and less than 1 centimeter, it does teach wherein the path of the effector can be changed to suit the needs of the patient (paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein a distance between the first point and the second point along the fiber of the contracted tissue is a distance selected from the group consisting of less than 5 millimeters and less than 1 centimeter as taught by Mackin as this would allow the therapy to be applied to the patient to suit their needs.
In regards to claim 12, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 11.
Litman does not disclose wherein the pressure applied moving from the first point to the second point is variable.
However, Mackin teaches wherein the pressure applied moving from the first point to the second point is variable (paragraph 63 and 69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein the pressure applied moving from the first point to the second point is variable as taught by Mackin as this would allow the therapy to be applied over a path to ensure best treatment.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman (US 2025/0083314) in view of Lee (KR 20160063167) as applied above and in further view of Schwarz (US 2023/0146988).
In regards to claim 15, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Litman does not disclose further comprising providing caffeine to the subject for ingestion before applying pressure.
However, Schwarz teaches further comprising providing caffeine to the subject for ingestion before applying pressure (caffeine may be applied before treatment and given orally, paragraph 57 line 1-5 and 7-8 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman further comprising providing caffeine to the subject for ingestion before applying pressure as taught by Schwarz as this would potentially make the treatment more comfortable of effective (Schwarz: paragraph 57 line 8-10).
Claim(s) 19 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman (US 2025/0083314) in view of Lee (KR 20160063167) as applied above and in further view of Verceles (US 2020/0375838).
In regards to claim 19, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Litman does not disclose wherein releasing the portion of the contracted tissue comprises breaking a chemical bond in the tissue.
However, Verceles teaches wherein releasing the portion of the contracted tissue comprises breaking a chemical bond in the tissue (paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein releasing the portion of the contracted tissue comprises breaking a chemical bond in the tissue as taught by Verceles as this is a known result of massage therapy.
In regards to claim 24, Litman in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1.
Litman does not disclose wherein the pressure applied to the first point is as high as can be tolerated by the subject.
However, Verceles teaches wherein the pressure applied to the first point is as high as can be tolerated by the subject (paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Litman wherein the pressure applied to the first point is as high as can be tolerated by the subject as taught by Verceles as this would allow treatment to be tailored to the tolerances of the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785